Censoring LLMs is a fools errand. It is based on "topic" rather than substance. It also suggests that what it can talk about, is not harmful, when it's the pers

Censoring LLMs is a fools errand. It is based on "topic" rather than substance. It also suggests that what it can talk about, is not harmful, when it's the personification of the left-side of Dunning-Kruger. It's all bullshit that sounds like language and correct-ish for the context. Pretending some of it is harmful is putting a high bar on what it considers isn't. Imagine you have a 10-year old, and you play a game of improv theater. The rules of the game are "You can only lose by admitting or suggesting that you don't know something. Making stuff up is OK. Contradicting yourself is OK". This is more or less how I experience LLMs to be. I find it strange that some topics are "dangerous", when the danger is just assuming something said is factually correct. Reminds me of a presentation on how to jailbreak LLMs, and you had your grandma tell you the ingredients and recipe for Napalm. Except, you can just google it. Unless the website contents was generated with LLMs, which is a troubling reality, it's likely to be correct. While the LLM side is just sentences that sound convincing. No requirement of the factual accuracy whatsoever.